When Senator Barack Obama responded to President George Bush and presumptive GOP Presidential nominee Senator John McCain’s suggestion that he would indulge in the “appeasement” of terrorists, it underscored several lessons — and several key changes — in the political, national and media landscapes.

For one thing, the incident revealed Obama’s quick-response style where he turned a defense into media-friendly offense — and is indicative of many Democrats’ determination to not be defined anymore by Republicans on national security issues.

TV talk shows, newscasts and many blogs have been having a field day with the White House’s shifting explanations of what Bush really meant. But there have been enough news reports now to solidify the fact that the remarks were indeed aimed at Obama. And it wasn’t just a Bush oversight that he swiped at the Democratic frontrunner while international news cameras whirred during his address in Israel.

Washinton Post blogger Chris Cillizza details some of the lessons:

First, it showed that despite the fact that Bush is winding up his second term and battling charges of lameduck-ism, he still an unmatched ability to drive the political dialogue in this country.

Make no mistake: This was a pre-planned strategy by the Bush campaign to re-inject foreign policy into the presidential campaign in a way that many Republicans believe will ultimately be beneficial to McCain. Deride Bush — and his strategic team — if you will, but remember that Team Bush managed to get their man elected president and then reelected in the face of growing concerns about the war in Iraq and declining popularity numbers. Bush’s political judgment since 2004 has proved somewhat suspect, but to dismiss his ability to understand and effectively analyze the political landscape could be a mistake on the part of Democrats.

That’s why it was so fascinating today to watch cable casts, listen to talk radio shows and read comments in blogs where the most lockstep Republican defenders of Mr. Bush insisted Obama and the Democrats were being paranoid. White House officials gave reporters various explanations of about to whom Bush was “really” referering, latest being that he was really referring to Jimmy Carter.

But you can now read Cillizza and any number of seasoned reporters covering this mini-firestorm and they’re not running the spin but calling it as it is. And bluntly.

The second lesson of the Knesset Kerfuffle is that the Democratic presidential nomination race is over. Amid all of the “he said, he said” between Obama and McCain/Bush, the one figure that has been almost entirely absent is Hillary Rodham Clinton. Can you imagine that happening even three months ago?

We’ve written about that since this story broke. It was instructive because (a) a day after former Senator John Edwards endorsed Obama and nearly wiped Clinton’s huge West Virginia win off the media’s stories-to-cover list, Bush made his comments aimed at Obama, (b)Clinton was out of this debate, (c)coverage of this news cycle shoved Clinton out of news coverage almost completely yesterday and today (except for her statement condemning Bush’s comments).

The third, and most important lesson, is that Obama is ready and willing to fight Republicans over foreign policy and national security concerns.

Bush’s remarks at the Knesset provided Obama with an interesting conundrum. Refuse to rise to the bait or engage full force in an attempt to begin to address concerns — voiced privately by some Democratic strategists — that the Illinois senator may not be able to win a general election that is framed as a referendum on which party can keep America safe.

Obama, to our mind, took the smarter course by not simply answering the inherent critique offered by the president but also pivoting to try and make McCain answerable for the foreign policy pursued by the United States over the last eight years.

Obama turned the proverbial lemon (being attacked by Bush and being put on the defensive and having to answer) into lemonade (going after Bush by rattling off specific criticisms, using humor and sarcasm and tethering McCain tightly to Bush one after McCain made a major speech in which the Arizona Senator tried to inch himself away from the most unpopular President in modern polling history).

But the biggest change is in the approach of Obama and the Democrats themselves.

As Cillizza notes, the Democrats usually would try not to aggressively challenge the Republicans on national security issues. They’d respond and quickly try to move onto domestic issues, such as health care, environment, the courts….figuring those were the party’s strength.

Rather than battle the GOP with the Republican’s choice of weapons, they tried to use other ones. But it turned out to be trying to counter a shotgun with a nail file.

Then there came the change, as Cillizza notes:

The 2004 election may well have signaled a sea change in that strategy, as Bush effectively turned the election into a referendum on the threat of terrorism and the importance of national security as Democrats were unable to mount an effective response.

In 2006, the Democrats began to engage the Republicans on what the GOP felt was its own national security turf even more…and saw results. Polls began to show that many Americans did not whoppingly trust the Republicans more than the Democrats.

One of the signs of political savvy is learning from mistakes and adapting. The Democrats seem to have started to adapt in recent years — and if Obama’s response in this controversy is any indication the rules and responses in the game have changed. Cillizza again:

It marks a remarkable change in tactics that speaks to just how much the political landscape has shifted since 2004. McCain and Republicans are certain to work to frame the national security/foreign policy debate in their favor, but Obama’s initial response is a sign that they may have to adjust their tactics in the runup to the November election.

What’s changed are several factors, which can’t be applied to the most lockstep Bush administration supporters, but to many Democrats, Republicans and independent voters.

Simple spin won’t do anymore. Spin is a lot more to be countered by a press singed by duly reporting official Bush administration statements over the years and in some cases being accused of doing more stenography than journalism. The Bush administration now has a massive — and profusely documented — credibility gap. McCain has enjoyed much credibility but if Bush keeps roping him in, McCain will begin to morph into Bush Lite among more voters than just progressive Democrats, who never liked him to begin with.

2008 ain’t 2006 which wasn’t 2004 which wasn’t 2000 in terms of the mega-quick response time of the Internet, the growth and popularity of cable news talk shows, talk radio, and a mainstream news media that is trying to respond quicker and more decisively to breaking news stories in order to compete with the new media. Many newspapers now have excellent political weblogs.

So the Democrats are responding faster, they have a presumptive candidate who turned a trap into media and political gain, and the Democrats will find more rapid coverage from the new media and also be dealing with a mainstream media that has been burned by Bush and the Republicans over the past few years.

Obama may be no John Kennedy, but in this instance he proved he was no Michael Dukakis or John Kerry.

And Democratic leaders’ super-quick responses falling in line behind him also suggested that the Democrats of 2008 are….so far at least (and the campaign is still young)…not the Democrats of 2004.

Cartoon by Huffaker, Cagle Cartoons

No, President Bush wasn’t attacking Barack Obama in his hugely inappropriate smack down before the Israeli Knesset yesterday in which he criticized a certain politician who would appease America’s enemies by speaking to “terrorists and radicals,” White House officials said on the record today while telling reporters off the record that Obama is of course who was being targeted.

Two hundred forty nine days and counting.

Obama fired back in a speech in South Dakota today:

“After eight years, I did not think I could be surprised by anything George Bush says, but I was wrong. That’s exactly the kind of appalling attack that has divided our country and has alienated us from the world. That’s why we need change in Washington.”

Two hundred forty nine days and counting.

Meanwhile, John McCain picked up on the theme of the man with the 27 percent job approval rating and tag teamed his presumptive rival in the fall campaign by asserting that Obama would appease Hamas, although in the past he himself has suggested that the U.S. should talk to the terrorist group.

Two hundred forty nine days and counting.

Obama also laid into McCain, pointing out that he had given a speech yesterday calling for civility and bipartisanship but then embraced Bush’s attacks.

“So much for civility,” Obama said.

Two hundred forty nine days and counting.

Democratic Senator Barack Obama has responded to President George Bush and presumptive Republican nominee Senator John McCain — calling Bush’s suggestion that he favored “appeasement” of terrorists “appalling” and blasting McCain’s agreement with Bush on the issue.

He called the attacks “dishonest and divisive” and accused McCain of “hypocrisy” for going after him despite having advocated talking to foes himself. He also cited various Republicans bigwigs and policymakers who also advocate dialogue. Here is his speech, via TPM:

CNN reports:

Barack Obama struck back hard at President Bush and John McCain Friday, accusing them of hypocrisy and of distorting his position on dialogue with nations hostile to the United States, telling a South Dakota crowd that “I’m running for president to change course, not to continue George Bush’s course.”

“I want to be perfectly clear with George Bush and John McCain, and with the people of South Dakota,” he said at a Watertown campaign stop. “If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate that I’m happy to have any time, any place and that is debate I will win because George Bush and John McCain have a lot to answer for.”

In his comments before the Israeli Knesset Thursday, Bush seemed to equate the Illinois senator’s foreign policy views with those of Nazi appeasers in the years before World War II, though he did not mention any names. Obama strongly criticized the president for the remarks Friday, calling them “the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and that alienates us from the world.”

Read it all.

Democrats should be heartened by Obama’s response. He shows here that he can not only respond quickly, but eloquently and with some humor as well. He used Bush’s comments to further tether McCain to Bush and use it as an argument for a change not only in policies but in the tone and seriousness of discussion of issues.

UPDATE: The Los Angeles’ Times Top of the Ticket blog has an interesting take on it — and “update” comments from McCain indicating that the presumptive GOP nominee is indeed saying “me, too” to Bush’s comments.

Signaling he’s not about to let the “appeasement” issue die, Barack Obama moments ago scored President Bush and John McCain on foreign policy. Speaking at a forum on agricultural issues in Watertown, S.D., Obama slammed the Republicans for contending that he was willing to negotiate with terrorists.

McCain is once again squarely aligning himself with Bush:

McCain’s spokesman, responds. “It was remarkable to see Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned. These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama. Sen. Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Sen. Obama talk about with such a man? It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.”

It isn’t even Christmas yet, and President George Bush has already given Democratic Presidential front-runner Senator Barack Obama a wonderful Christmas gift.

Gift wrapped even.

And, according to reports, Obama will send a strongly worded “thank you” (but not using those exact words) later today.

As we noted in yesterday’s posts, when President Bush used a setting in Israel — the kind of foreign-soil setting Republicans long said should never be used by American politicians for political denunciations of other American politicians — to basically accuse Senator Barack Obama of wanting to appease terrorists, it was the most thoughtful gift Bush could have given him. The White House originally contended it was all in Obama’s mind that Bush was referring to him, but by the end of the day it was clear officials made a point of telling reporters they were not denying that if the shoe fits…

The problem was: Bush had thrown out a similar shoe about Democrats on Tuesday to CNN, so all the talk from Bush defenders that it was Democratic paranoia or posturing didn’t make sense — except to a can of Jolly Green Giant string beans sitting on a shelf at a supermarket.

Now MSNBC’s First Read team of political experts has weighed in and they MUST be reading TMV. Because they, too, feel Bush gave Obama the perfect gift and Hillary Clinton a sock full of coal:

When President Bush — thousands of miles away in Israel — decided to fire his thinly veiled shot at Obama yesterday, it was a giant gift to the Illinois senator and his campaign. Why? One, it essentially kept Clinton on the sidelines just two days after her big West Virginia victory. Two, Obama’s opponent was no longer Clinton or McCain, but the man with the 27% job-approval rating. And three, it rallied Democrats to Obama’s side.

Bush HAS proven that he is a “uniter not a divider” — in terms of Democratic party unity…

Even neutral Dems, like Joe Biden, Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid, quickly leapt to Obama’s defense. Some Democrats might be deeply divided right now. Pro-choice women are angry at NARAL’s endorsement of Obama; Clinton supporters are upset that Obama is looking like the eventual nominee; and some African Americans are unhappy with the Clintons. But what’s the best way to unify them all? Give them an excuse to turn their attention to Bush.

The good thing about it for Democrats — and the bad thing about it for John McCain who sees the media oxygen sucked out from his breathing space — is that the story is FAR from over yet:

And this will all play out another day — and will likely extend into the weekend — as Obama will respond this afternoon to Bush at his rally with Tom Daschle in South Dakota, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports. Obama will react to both what he considers Bush’s politicization of foreign policy and the substance of Bush’s attack.

A recent poll showed that McCain is hurt more by being seen as an extension of Bush than Obama is hurt due to his association with his imflammatory-talking former pastor. If Obama is seen as battling and being demonized by the most unpopular President in American history — a President who acts as if he is President of a political faction rather than of all Americans — it won’t help McCain.

Question: Has Bush become to John McCain what Bill Clinton became in South Carolina to the Hillary Clinton campaign?

If so, McCain could have as much trouble controlling Bush’s comments as Hillary has in controlling Bill’s…

Stay tuned for Obama’s heavily-covered “thank you” to Mr. Bush later in the day………..

UPDATE: Be sure to read Dick Poleman’s MUST READ HERE about how Bush sandbagged McCain’s speech yesterday and could be an ongoing problem (as noted in our post above). Polman details the LARGE number of Republican policymakers and GOP figures who have also suggested opening a dialogue with Iran,

He also notes what we’ve noted: the White House later confirmed that Bush’s comments were aimed at Obama without using Obama’s actual name.

FOOTNOTE: There is indeed a difference between appeasement and dialogue. If you haven’t already, watch Chris Matthews HERE.

In what could prove to be a damaging moment for the McCain campaign, Former Clinton Administration State Department spokesman James Rubin has written an op-ed highlighting an interview he conducted with McCain a few years ago for Sky News in the UK. In the interview, conducted shortly after Hamas’ victory in Palestinian elections, the following exchange occurred:

[Rubin] asked: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?”

McCain answered: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

Here is the video of the interview:

There are a couple of striking things about this revelation.

1) McCain’s charge today that Barack Obama’s willingness to meet with foreign dictators is a sign of naivete and unfitness for office looks like pure hypocrisy. Ironically enough, Barack Obama has actually drawn the line at Hamas, refusing to go along with Jimmy Carter. Obama will only meet with Hamas after they renounce terrorism and their commitment to the destruction of Israel. McCain now has egg on his face for supporting negotiations in the past that he now opposes.

It isn’t like the situation between Hamas and Israel is substantively different now than two years ago either. Hamas is just as dangerous to Israel now as then. The only difference seems to be that John McCain thought he could skewer Barack Obama for his support for diplomacy. It looks like McCain skewered himself.

2) Another striking aspect of McCain’s comments is his seeming rationalization for Hamas’ election. McCain sympathizes with the Hamas voter, it seems, citing the Palestinians’ desperation for prosperity and security that Fatah could not deliver. Well, Fatah may not have been able to deliver it, but that doesn’t mean Hamas was the answer.

If the McCain of 2008 had answered James Rubin’s question he would have said, “No, we will not treat Hamas diplomatically the way we did Palestinian governments of the past. Hamas is a terrorist organization and until they renounce terrorism and recognize Israel we have nothing to negotiate with them.”

Instead, McCain cited the “new reality in the Middle East,” and the need to “deal with [Hamas] one way or another.” And the context of the interview clearly suggests that McCain did not mean dealing with Hamas through force.

It seems the only new reality John McCain faces is his own hypocrisy.

When President George Bush made comments in Israel accusing Democratic Senator Barack Obama of wanting to appease terrorism, it raised several issues.

First, he didn’t actually name Obama so the White House could say it was all in Mr. Obama’s mind. This is the pols’ timeless technique of “plausible deniability” — although in this case only a jar of sauerkraut sitting on the shelf at Stop & Shop in New Haven, Connecticut would think Bush is actually being misunderstood.

The problem: Bush had made comments on Tuesday similar but not quite as blunt as the ones he chose to make on foreign soil. Read our earlier post to recap and be sure to see the update with the link to his earlier comments (and from Senator Joe Lieberman saying Bush got it exactly right).

Secondly, over the years when Democrats made sharply partisan comments from foreign soil blasting the U.S. Republicans, many independents, and some Democrats angrily denounced them. Using foreign soil to blast your own country or candidates is considered one of the lowest forms of politics. But without reading blog commentary or watching and listening to Republican commentators this independent voter (who voted for Ronald Reagan) knows what the argument most likely is in most quarters: strip it away and it’s “It’s OK if Bush does it” (because he has an “R” in front of his name) but if Obama did it he would be lambasted.

But the Philadelphia Daily News’ Will Bunch says it better than I can because I’m still absorbing the spectacle of someone who is supposed to represent ALL OF US including Democrats and independents having in the space of one week TWICE equated Democrats and now Obama (nameless but read our previous post) with appeasement and suggesting that unless you vote for his party you may die in a terrorist attack.

So here are generous portions from Bunch’s post with some comments:

I’ve seen a lot of sad things in American politics in my lifetime — the resignation of a president who became a national disgrace after he oversaw a campaign of break-ins and cover-ups, another who circumvented the Constitution to trade arms for hostages, and yet is now hailed as national hero. And those paled to what we have seen in the last seven years — flagrant disregard for the Constitution, the launching of a “pre-emptive” war on false pretenses, and discussions about torture and other shocking abuses inside the White House inner sanctum.

But now it’s come to this: A new low that I never imagined was even possible.

President Bush went on foreign soil today, and committed what I consider an act of political treason: Comparing the candidate of the U.S. opposition party to appeasers of Nazi Germany — in the very nation that was carved out from the horrific calamity of the Holocaust. Bush’s bizarre and beyond-appropriate detour into American presidential politics took place in the middle of what should have been an occasion for joy: A speech to Israeli’s Knesset to honor that nation’s 60th birthday.

Read the rest of this entry »

As President Bush visits an Israel celebrating its 60th anniversary, Arabs and Palestinians commemorate the “Nakba,” which in Arabic means “the catastrophe.”

For a sampling of what all nations in the region outside of Israel think of the events and President Bush’s visit, a good place to start would be this editorial from Jordan’s Jordan Times.

It reads in part:

“U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday arrived in Israel to cheer that country’s independence and celebrate Israeli democracy. … Bush hailed Israel as an example to the region. One wonders which example Bush was referring to. How to get rid of a pesky native population? How to create a democracy for 80 percent of its people, based on their ethno-religious backgrounds, and present itself as a haven for progressive values? Or could it have been how it has occupied a neighboring territory and people and blame the victims for their oppression?”
Read the rest of this entry »

So what’s the global prognosis for George W. Bush’s latest and last trip to the Middle East as President?

Judging from this account from Le Figaro’s Jerusalem correspondent Patrick Saint-Paul, one might diplomatically call European expectations “modest.”

The lede of Saint-Paul write-thru reads:

“The American president could hardly have envisaged a more unfavorable climate for his Middle East tour. Expected this morning in Jerusalem to participate in celebrations for the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, George W. Bush will have few other reasons to rejoice during a tour that will also take him to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and which is likely to illustrate the failure of his policies in the region. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is on the brink of collapse. In Lebanon, the pro-Western government of Fouad Siniora is suffering a Hezbullah onslaught, while the Shiite movement is supported by the two black beasts of U.S. policy in the region, Iran and Syria.”

By Patrick Saint-Paul, correspondent in Jerusalem

Translated By Sandrine Agoerges

May 13, 2008

France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)

The American president arrives in Israel in midst of political uncertainty and with the peace process is at a standstill.

The American president could hardly have envisaged a more unfavorable climate for his Middle East tour. Expected this morning in Jerusalem to participate in celebrations for the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, George W. Bush will have few other reasons to rejoice during a tour that will also take him to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and which is likely to illustrate the failure of his policies in the region. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is on the brink of collapse. In Lebanon, the pro-Western government of Fouad Siniora is suffering a Hezbullah onslaught, while the Shiite movement is supported by the two black beasts of U.S. policy in the region, Iran and Syria.

For his second visit to Jerusalem since last January, Bush will be forced to note that since he undertook to revive peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians at Annapolis in late 2007, no progress has been made. “Unless he has a rabbit in his hat, this will be the third time in the past half year that the U.S. president shows the Palestinians and the entire Arab world that they are wasting their time by trying to end the occupation by peaceful means.” says Akiva Eldar in an editorial entitled Bush should stay home .

The hope of the American President to see an agreement before the end of the year seems illusory. According to his entourage, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, told Bush during his visit to Washington last month that upon discovering the positions of Israeli negotiators, he thought it was a joke - so far where they from the parameters set by Bill Clinton at the time of the previous talks.

According to the Palestinians, Israeli negotiators sought to retain, in addition to large areas with Jewish settlements, the Jordan Valley up to the outskirts of Nablus - amounting to about 10 percent more territory. In Jerusalem, there would be no question of splitting the old city - home to the sacred sites, nor the restoration of the Arab districts that border it. Israel merely proposed Palestinian control over an “Esplanade of Mosques” and some of the suburbs surrounding East Jerusalem. The talks were jeopardized by programs to enlarge Israeli settlements in the West Bank and violence in Gaza strip, where missiles launched by Hamas activists have led to an Israeli military response.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing foreign press coverage of President Bush’s trip to the Middle East.

Now that the pro-Western government in Lebanon has been “put in its place” by Hezbollah - and by extension Iran and Syria - what is Israel up against - and what narrative will the Islamists use to heal the wounds and consolidate their victory?

Yasser Al Zaatera of Palestine’s Samiddon newspaper outlines the likely approach.

Explaining why Lebanon’s Pro-West Sunni government is afraid of Hezbullah and Iran, Zaatera writes:

“The people of the Umma [the Muslim Nation] and in particular the Sunnis, are as captive as they are perplexed. On the one hand, they know that what’s happening in Lebanon is an integral part of the battle that the Americans and Israelis are waging against forces of resistance and opposition in the region. Read the rest of this entry »

The events now unfolding in the Middle East, which have been set in motion by Hezbullah’s takeover last week of much of Beirut, do not bode well for American or Israeli interests, warns one of France’s leading historians and journalists, Alexandre Adler.

Writing for France’s Le Figaro newspaper, Adler writes that Iranian President Ahmadinidjad, hemmed in by opponents at home and abroad, has turned to one of the last cards he holds in his hand: the Lebanese Hezbullah:

“Let us first turn to Iran, which is in a fever and where the most decisive threats originate. Iran’s President and his trusted accomplices - and a pro-Iranian faction of al-Qaeda - hope to recreate unity among all people of Muslim faith for a renewed jihad against America and Israel. Voices have been heard, notably among the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, who hope for such an outcome and support Iran’s nuclear program, which many Islamists - not only in Cairo - regard as a liberating force that should be immediately employed against Israel, whatever the risks.”

After discussing Hezbullah’s plans for civil war in Lebanon to dislodge its pro-Western opposition, Adler warns:

“Israel cannot tolerate a military victory for Hezbullah over its [pro-West] Lebanese opponents - any more than it can allow Ahmadinejad to pursue nuclear blackmail, especially in this very strange context: There is the probability that a Democratic candidate - indeed an Obama election victory - could bring to the White House a supporter of negotiations at all costs. … Clearly, this is a distressing 60th anniversary for Israel.”

This is a seminal article about what the United States now confronts, and it should be read by anyone interested in understanding this very important and hard-to-penetrate topic.
Read the rest of this entry »

This Guest Voice post is by Floyd and Mary Beth Brown. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of TMV or its writers.

News Flash to Jimmy Carter: You are No Longer President

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

You have probably heard of a “rogue cop,” but now there is a “rogue former president” who is out independently and recklessly promoting his own foreign policy.

However, this is certainly not a new stunt for Jimmy Carter; he has a long history of meeting with terrorist leaders in the Middle East. Once again, this former president defied the United States and Israel by meeting with top leaders of Hamas. U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick said of Carter, “His actions reward terrorists, lend support, and provide legitimacy to their belief that violence will eventually get them what they want.”

Myrick called on Secretary of State Condi Rice to revoke Jimmy Carter’s passport. He clearly is violating U.S. policy in meeting with leaders of a terrorist organization. The power to grant and revoke passports is under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State. Carter reportedly hugged and kissed one of the Hamas leaders and met for seven hours with top Hamas officials.

After his visit, Carter told National Public Radio that he had not received a clear signal from the Bush administration not to go. In response, Condi told reporters, “We counseled President Carter against going to the region and particularly against having contacts with Hamas,” affirming that the State Department did indeed explicitly advise Carter against meeting with Hamas. Carter’s meddling creates confusion amidst the already ensuing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Apparently, Carter has never gotten over losing to Ronald Reagan. “Perhaps [Carter’s] greatest regret in not being reelected was that it prevented him from completing a comprehensive peace agreement,” writes Carter biographer Peter G. Bourne. However, in 1983 Carter met with Hafez al-Assad, president of Syria, a known sponsor of terrorism. “In 1985,” Bourne continues, “Carter published The Blood of Abraham… what amounted to the strategy for a permanent peace that he would have pursued in a second term.”

By his actions, it appears that even though he lost the presidency in 1980, Carter is still trying to enact his strategy for Middle East peace. In 1987, Carter returned for a meeting with Assad despite the Reagan administration refusing to have any official contact with the terrorist organization, the PLO.
Read the rest of this entry »

Carter’s meeting with Khaled Meshaal over the weekend wasn’t exactly a blinding success. Dion Nissenbaum, the Jerusalem bureau chief for McClatchy Newspapers, has the scoop:

In his talks with Hamas leaders, Carter sought to persuade the group to declare a unilateral, 30-day cease fire in Gaza as a good-will gesture. But Hamas was having none of it. Early Monday, Carter said, he called Mashaal one last time to try and convince the Hamas leader to accept the idea. “I told them, ‘don’t wait for reciprocation,’” Carter later told reporters. “Just do it unilaterally. This will bring a lot of credit to you around the world, doing a humane thing. They turned me down. I think they’re wrong. I did the best I could on that. I don’t understand their rocket decision.”

Carter [also said that] Hamas was willing to accept any peace deal Abbas signed with Israel - if it was put to a vote of the Palestinian people. Within hours, though, a Hamas leader in Gaza poured cold water on the statement. Sami Abu Zhuri told the Associated Press that Carter’s comments “do not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum.” So much for that.

And so much for Carter’s attempt to achieve the release of captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit. Despite the requests of Noam Shalit, Gilad’s father, as well as Shas Party leader Eli Yishai, Carter wasn’t able to get Meshaal to budge. The only “concession” he received was an agreement to release another letter from Shalit to his family. Meshaal, Carter noted, also indicated his willingness to release the soldier as part of a general prisoner swap - nice of him, except that that’s been Hamas’s position all along.

Carter’s lack of success, however, shouldn’t undercut calls for engagement with Hamas. The arguments for direct negotiations are many times stronger than those against, and Carter’s poor showing hasn’t changed that fact. The Israeli policy of isolating Hamas has brought few positive results to speak of: Hamas continues to have the capabilities to fire rockets and detonate suicide bombs and the Gazan people are no less anti-Hamas than when the policy began (in fact, polls have shown that support for Hamas is on the rise.) Carter, it appears, has acknowledged this reality – that Hamas isn’t going anywhere and therefore must be dealt with diplomatically – and has tried to open the door to a new policy. In fact, he’s one of the only prominent Israeli or American political figures who’s had the guts to point out that a different strategy is needed, and then actively push for its implementation.

He deserves applause for his efforts.

Credulous, likely-senile Jimmy Carter had tea with the terrorist group Hamas and now, according to MSNBC, Hamas is asking for a 10-year “truce” while refusing to recognize the State of Israel on the condition that said State of Israel return to the nearly-indefensible 1967 (read 1949) borders.

This is nothing new from Hamas, which would love to import offensive weaponry for the next 10 years while ruling both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Hamas’ terrorist attacks will simply be farmed out to (or conveniently blamed upon) Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Al-Aksa Martyrs’ Brigades etc…while Hamas claims to be at peace and that Israeli self-defense violates this ‘hudna’ (an Islamic temporary truce until victory can be attained over an unwary enemy).

Hamas had its chance to give up violence and become a constructive political organization when it won that so-called election. Hamas could have suppressed violence and dismantled the other terrorist groups (see above list) while working with Israel and the world community to ease the plight of its subjects. Did Hamas choose to grow up? No way! Hamas chose to blow its big chance and continue to bring misery to the Palestinian Arabs.

Only an ignorant, politically-correct, self-righteous moralizing fool would buy-into this nonsense.

Daryl Cagle, MSNBC.com

Mike Lester, The Rome News-Tribune

High up on the controversy meter is Carter meets Hamas chief over Israeli, US objections.

I don’t believe that President Carter’s intention is to legitimatize the tactics of Hamas but rather to legitimatize some of the issues that motivate Hamas and the people who voted them into power. That Hamas is belligerent and refuses to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist is a major hurdle in advancing peace. But the Israeli response is to provocatively expand settlements in land seized in past wars. This dramatically dilutes the perception that Israel is taking the high road in dealing with a community that believes it was booted out of its homeland by foreign powers. Non Partisan people around the world may see that Israeli policy is provoking conflict rather than responding to reasonable claims.

Obama has finally drawn a line in the sand about negotiating with foreign leaders. Too bad he’s drawn it in the wrong place.

“Sen. Obama does not agree with President Carter’s decision to go forward with [a meeting with exiled Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal] because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements,” a spokesman for the Obama campaign said. “As president, Obama will negotiate directly with the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.” (Source: JTA)

What a shame that Obama doesn’t have the guts to support Carter and denounce a policy — the isolation of Hamas — that has brought such misery and achieved so little. Ismail Haniyeh’s besieged government is not significantly weaker than it was in 2006, and nor have the Palestinians decided to give up on supporting the militant-cum-political organization. In fact, recent polls have shown that support for Hamas has actually risen higher than that for Fatah, and that Haniyeh would beat Fatah’s candidate in a general election. If that’s not a sign that the policy has failed, I’m not sure what is.

Furthermore, there’s a humanitarian and moral angle for opposing the current policy of isolation towards Hamas. By maintaining an economic blockade against Gaza, Israel is engaging in a policy of collective punishment. Israel, which controls Gaza’s borders, taxes, and imports, has cut off most of the essential supplies needed by the territory’s 1.5 million residents. A widening crisis of malnutrition, poorly-stocked health clinics, regular power outages, unclean water, and crumbling infrastructure make life hell in Gaza. A recent report by CARE argued that the humanitarian situation, under the Israeli embargo, is as bad as it’s been in 40 years. People are literally starving.

Yes, Hamas’s status as both a political group and a militant organization makes negotiations complicated. But the group was democratically elected and must therefore be engaged with. Moreover, it is not logical to force Hamas to agree to numerous preconditions before talks begin. The establishment of such preconditions has no historical precedence; Israel took part in intense discussions with the PLO, Jordan, and Egypt before any of these parties had renounced violence against the Jewish state. The renunciation of violence and the recognition of Israel would seem to be the end goal, not mere preconditions to the talks. (In a similar way, it makes no sense to ask Iran to suspend enrichment before negotiations get underway.) As Efraim Halevy, the former head of the Mossad said in an interview, “there is logic in the Hamas’ position that ideological ‘conversion’ is the endgame and not the first move in a negotiation.”

And it’s not just Halevy who believes in engaging Hamas unconditionally. Add to the list Brent Scowcroft, Zbiegniew Brzezinski, Thomas Pickering, Eric Shinseki, Paul Volcker, Lawrence Korb, Anatol Lieven, Lawrence Wilkerson, Joseph Wilson, and Colin Powell. That Obama doesn’t understand the failure of our Hamas isolation policy, or that he just doesn’t have the courage to stand up and speak out against it, is depressing. He’s not even president yet and, for me, disillusionment is already starting to set in.

Kevin Sullivan defends Sen. Obama’s criticism of former President Carter — by slicing up Steve Clemons’ rebuke of Obama on the same subject.

We just posted at WORLDMEETS.US something that anyone interested in global affairs simply must watch.

Nearly every year at the annual Arab Summit, Libyan despot Muammar Qadhafi gives a speech to the collected rulers of the Arab world who in stony-faced silence, sit and listen to him. Invariably - it is absolutely priceless.

From the good people of the Middle East Media Research Institute, I offer to you, Libyan Strongman Mu’ammar Qadhafi

As the grim milestones in Iraq pile up, Americans aren’t the only ones wondering how long the war will go on. Jean-Claude Kiefer writes for France’s Dernieres Nouvelles d’Alsace, ‘the United States has been discredited; Islamist terrorism is expanding; there is extreme tension throughout the Middle East; the Israeli-Palestinian crisis with Hamas has radicalized Gaza; Iran has been declared a regional power and may soon go nuclear; the regimes of the pro-Western Arab states are shaky; and the major routes of oil - which is already very expensive - are threatened … And this is not an exhaustive list!’

By Jean-Claude Kiefer

Translated By Philippe Guittard

March 23, 2008

France - Dernières Nouvelles d’Alsace - Home Page (French)

Tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, millions of refugees, nearly 4,000 American soldiers killed in daily attacks, a country devastated … And, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, a bill of direct and indirect costs of $3 trillion which was paid for on credit, and which has greatly contributed to the decline in the dollar! And yet to draw up a complete accounting of five years of war in Iraq is impossible. Read the rest of this entry »